Bill Casey

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, as long as I am here I still get surprises when people stand and ask these questions. I find that approach absolutely amazing, that he would question the activities in Atlantic Canada. He does not have to ask me. He should ask the Americans who say that there is no subsidy. The Americans are the ones who say that if the rest of Canada had forestry practices like Atlantic Canada, we would not be here. We would not have $5 billion dollars sitting in a bank in the United States that we want to get back but may or may not ever do.

What an amazing admission by the Liberals that they do not understand the basic premise of this. The Americans are making the accusation against us. There is no accusation against Atlantic Canada. How the hon. member could stand and make that silly statement, I will never understand. It is the Americans who are calling the shots. They are making the accusations that if other provinces had the same forestry practices as Atlantic Canada, we would not be here because there would be no argument.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, as a former car dealer, I cannot help but answer that question with how effective was the Envoy. The Envoy was a car that was imported to Canada in the sixties and it was not very effective.

That worked very well in previous cases that Canada has negotiated with the U.S., especially the acid rain treaty that no one ever thought would happen. I was there when that was passed and it never would have been passed without that process, and I think it would work again.

However I have been at this a long time and if members were to go back and read my comments in Hansard for the last seven or eight years they would see that I have always advocated for a united Canadian position and one Canadian negotiator . In this case we have had every province and region go down to Washington to negotiate and then they negotiate against each other. The government has never established a united position for the entire Canadian industry.

I just cannot help but think of the expression “united we stand, divided we fall”. One of the biggest mistakes Canada and the Government of Canada has made is to not bring the Canadian industry together because the industry is completely different as we go across the country. We have many different forestry practices and in Atlantic Canada we have a unique practice and they protect it so well. They spend a lot of money and a lot of attention protecting the uniqueness of the Atlantic Canadian forestry practices.

I want to give credit to the Maritime Lumber Bureau and the president and CEO, Diana Blenkhorn, who might be listening, because she has led that team. It has been the most successful organization to represent a lumber industry in Canada. However the bottom line is that we need a united position and if we do not have one we will never succeed in any negotiations with the Americans.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I do but I think the member oversimplifies the process. I do not ever see us getting all the money back just because of the process, not because of the decision, but I certainly think it should come back.

I want to disagree with the member when he says that his Liberal government has always stood by the Atlantic Canadian industry. I am not sure of the year but I believe it was in 2001 that the Department of International Trade presented a proposal in Washington that did away with the Atlantic exemption completely. It baffled the Americans, it baffled the maritime industry and still baffles me today that it did that but it did pull it back.

The Americans stood up for the Maritimes more than the Liberal government did. They were stronger supporters of us because they said that Atlantic Canada did not have a subsidy and that there was no allegation of a subsidy and asked why they would have a countervail against the Maritimes, but the Liberals offered it to them.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, that is an amazing question. The NAFTA is a long term, durable agreement but under U.S. domestic law, over which we have no control, it can start this cycle again. The American industry can petition its government to pick a different time period and say that it thinks there was injury or and a subsidy given during this time period and the process starts all over again. There is no point in just having the Americans agree to this NAFTA decision. We need to have an agreement that will go forward and overrule U.S. domestic law.

There is no sense in us doing this 20 years from now. I was involved in this debate in 1988. I am still here and we are still talking about the same thing and hearing the same arguments. If the member wants to continue doing that for another 20 years, I wish him the best of luck.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

The member stands corrected, but I can understand his confusion. It is hard to find out what the government has done.

When I was first elected to this place in 1988, one of the first issues we dealt with was the softwood lumber crisis. It had been going on before I came here. One of the first battles we had was to educate the rest of the group on the fact that Atlantic Canada had an important industry and that it was unique and a little different than the rest of the industry across the country. The fact that the Department of International Trade made a proposal to the Americans that would sell out the Maritime exception was an example of the lack of understanding of the Maritime industry.

The U.S. industry claims that Canadian exports to the United States injures its business. It accuses Canada of selling our trees for less than market value. It is all about that. The Americans claim it is a subsidy. It petitioned the U.S. government for an interim countervail charge against the Canadian ministry. It said that Canadian provinces subsidized the forestry industry by selling its trees, logs and stumpage for less than the market price. It has been very successful in getting these interim countervail charges against the entire country.

However, the United States always has recognized that Atlantic Canada has different forestry practices and it has been exempt every time. I think it was 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001 when the Americans acknowledged that the Maritime forestry industry and its practices were not countervailable because the practices were much the same as those in the U.S.

Seventy-five per cent of the lands that produce forestry products in Atlantic Canada are privately owned. Wood is marketed at market value. Even on government owned land wood is marketed at market value. The industry takes great steps to ensure that is the case.

The Maritime exemption has been recognized by different governments in the U.S. for years. In fact, they have considered a model of what the Canadian industry might look at if we were to avoid any of these countervail accusations and charges.

I want to make it very clear that the Maritime exemption does not come easy and it does not come cheap. The Maritime Lumber Bureau has established its own tracking system that satisfies the American authorities that every stick of lumber that comes out of Atlantic Canada has been grown in Atlantic Canada on Atlantic Canada land. There was an accusation that some lumber was being funnelled through Atlantic Canada from other provinces in Canada and that they were wrongly taking advantage of the Atlantic exemption.

The Maritime Lumber Bureau has invented a system to track every 2x4, every piece of wood that goes to the U.S. It can tell from what mill it has come and from what woodlot it originally came. That costs a lot of money. The bureau pays for it. It is entirely accepted by the American authorities. The bureau feels this ensures that the U.S. does not get subsidized lumber.

I can give the House another example of the price Atlantic Canada has paid to maintain this exemption.

Twice in the past the Government of Canada has offered compensation to cover legal costs in the softwood lumber battle. Both times Atlantic Canada has refused the money. It would rather not have the money than risk even an allegation of a subsidy. Atlantic Canada has chosen to pay the legal bills, and they have amounted to millions of dollars over the years it has been involved with this.

Atlantic Canada now sets the benchmark for forest practices. The Americans acknowledge that Atlantic Canada forest practices are not countervailable. It might be wise advice for other provinces to look at Atlantic Canada practices and try to emulate them. By doing so, we would not need another debate.

Each time we get into battle with the Americans we end up in litigation with the NAFTA panel and the WTO. Even if we win, we do not get a settlement. We recently won in the NAFTA tribunals. We lost one in the WTO but we won the most important ones at NAFTA and we are still here arguing about it. We are still paying the duties. We are still paying the billions of dollars to the U.S. because we have not been able to sort this out through litigation.

I have heard the term tonight and I have heard it a lot lately from the Liberals that we need a long term durable solution, and that is true, but the fact is, if the Americans suddenly had a revelation and said that they were wrong, that they accept the last NAFTA decision and that they will give all the money back, the very next day the U.S. industry would again petition its government and start the process all over again.

We need a long term durable solution. We need more than the Americans just accepting NAFTA decisions. We need to reach out to them. We need to start a process where we can negotiate a long term durable solution.

Yes, we need to ensure NAFTA is honoured and the agreement is kept but that is not enough. We need the Americans to move. We need to see some action on their part. I do not hear a lot about that. If we just accept the solution as being that the Americans accept the NAFTA decision, it will not be enough because they will just file another petition and start all over again. They will just take a different time period and away they go.

The government has to work a lot harder and do a lot more than just rattle its sabres and try to make the Americans live up to the NAFTA agreement. They have to start a process that will give us a long term durable solution.

I just received a letter that is only four days old. I just want to indicate where we are in this great debate with the Americans. The letter is from 21 prominent U.S. senators who wrote to Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce for the United States. One line reads, “There is no question that Canada subsidizes its lumber industry”. So We have not made a lot of progress.

The letter goes on to say:

NAFTA panel decisions cannot and should not force the Department to deny legitimate relief under U.S. law to the domestic lumber industry and its workers.

The letter is a very strong signal that even if something does happen and they accept the NAFTA agreement, they will be right back in the courtroom, right back in the tribunal and right back at the WTO unless we have a long term agreement to which we both agree. That has to be part of whatever we do next.

Imagine what we could do with all the money that is sitting in coffers in the United States. Imagine the health care improvements, the infrastructure improvements and the education improvements we could have if we had this money. We need the money here. We do not need it in the U.S. If we do not get it resolved, we are still sending money down every day.

In my opinion, all parties have to act in good faith. We have to honour NAFTA, but at the same time, we have to sit down and hammer out a long term and durable agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I do not mean just Canada and the U.S., but all of Canada has to agree to it as well. All provinces and regions have to be involved in the negotiations and the establishment of a deal. We had a deal before one time. One area of the country insisted that we renegotiate that deal and we are here today because of that.

We should start by trying to get some consensus and make sure we are all singing from the same song sheet and then arrive at a deal with the Americans . after they honour the NAFTA agreement. It has to be done. It is a signed, sealed and delivered agreement.

However that is not enough. We need to go on from there and negotiate a long term deal and it has to be representative of the interests of all of Canada. If there is one place where the government has failed, it has never has a unified position that represents all the interests in Canada. We have never had that through the years and years of negotiations. We have never had it and I do not believe we have it today.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and talk about the softwood lumber issue.

I want to take a moment to correct the very distinguished member for Yellowhead who said that the Liberals had done absolutely nothing. They did do something in 2001 when they approached the Americans with a proposal that would have completely sold out Atlantic Canada. They proposed to take away the Maritime exemption, which the Maritime Lumber Bureau fought hard for over many years. It was so crazy it even baffled the Americans. The Americans never considered the possibility that Atlantic Canada had a subsidy on its softwood lumber. Nobody could understand why the government made this proposal. The government did do one thing in the last decade or so.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac commented that there has been a lot of lobbying and a lot of contact back and forth. I received a letter today dated October 20, five days ago, signed by 21 U.S. senators which kind of indicates that we are not making a lot of progress. This is a letter to the secretary of commerce, and I will just read certain parts of it:

Dear Mr. Secretary:

There is no question that Canada subsidizes the lumber industry. The Commerce Department has repeatedly found significant countervailable subsidies--

It goes on. Basically it says that they are urging the secretary of commerce to continue.

--we urge the Department, in responding to this flawed NAFTA decision, to fully consider and utilize any legal and appropriate alternative that would allow this essential trade law relief to stay in effect.

My point is we are not making a lot of progress apparently by that letter from 21 senators. Even though they are saying that Canada subsidizes its industry, there has never been an accusation that Atlantic Canada subsidizes the industry. We have a completely different regime there and we have protected it religiously and avoided any possible steps that would allow even an alleged accusation of subsidies.

If we do make some headway with the U.S. in getting the money back, what exactly does the member see the process is to establish this durable solution that he talks about?

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the member raises that question. Today is the very distinguished member's from Yorkton—Melville's birthday and he has been advocate for wise government spending, away from the gun registry.

The gun registry money has been a total waste. This money should have gone to the RCMP and other justice procedures.

Some people in my riding are being required to pay a fee to be re-licensed. It is absolute chaos. The government could put another $200 billion or $300 billion into the gun registry and it will all go down the toilet. We need the money for real law enforcement. We need money for the RCMP so that its has the tools with which to work.

[Criminal Code, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for allowing me to share his time.

He mentioned “out there in the real world”. It made me think of my case. I was first elected in 1988. I am the longest serving member of Parliament in my province, and I have seen a dramatic change in the last five or six years in the way law enforcement is handled.

When I first became a member of Parliament, there virtually were no law enforcement issues. Now it has become one of the major issues I deal with and one of the most complicated simply because the government shortchanges the RCMP. It does not have the tools, or the funds or the police officers to do the minimum level of law enforcement and it makes everybody's life very difficult. I think it reflects on everyone's attitude on law enforcement and the justice system, as does this bill.

We really area proud that at least Chuck Cadman's initiative is recognized. However, we are not happy with the way it has been recognized. Chuck's initiative was to establish a law that would make it illegal to remove, obliterate or change serial numbers of vehicles. It was a clear and simple law. It would be up to the person to explain why the VIN was obliterated.

However, the Liberals have take the onus off the owner. It is up to the police now to prove the owner did it for wrongful purposes. It takes away the whole purpose of the bill. That is why the Conservatives will not support it.

What is wrong with asking owners to explain why they are driving around in cars with VINs that have obviously been scratched out or changed? It is their responsibility. They should be charged and held responsible to prove that it was for legitimate reasons. Why the government would not do that? If it did, I would support the bill. However, it reflects its whole attitude on crime.

When the last speaker talked about the real world, I was in the real world a couple of weeks ago. I went to a meeting of scared citizens in Stewiacke, Nova Scotia. This is a community where people do not usually lock their doors. They leave their keys in their cars. It is a very safe community and it has been that way for decades. Now all of a sudden they are faced with property damage and thefts, a scary atmosphere for them to live in and raise their kids. What impressed me the most was that speaker after speaker got up and said that they were scared for the well-being and security.

There were two big issues. One is the RCMP is not available like it used to be. There was a detachment in Stewiacke, Nova Scotia. The building became unusable because of mould. The RCMP has not replaced it because it does not have the funds. Stewiacke has lost its RCMP presence, the only police presence in the community.

The other issue is the Youth Criminal Justice Act is simply not working for the people in Stewiacke. It is causing them a great deal of grief.

Last week a person from the community of Debert came to see me. This is another traditional small community in Nova Scotia where people did not lock their doors and they would leave their keys in their cars. They cannot do it any more because of inadequate police protection. People have had their cottages burned and windows smashed. They have had things stolen from their garages and yards. The RCMP has said that it has done the best it can, but it does not have enough manpower. It also does not have the proper equipment. If the RCMP had the equipment and the manpower, it could do it.

I have spoken to RCMP officers at every detachment. They have said that if someone is on maternity leave, or on sick leave or is seconded on a murder investigation somewhere else, there is no replacement. An RCMP detachment, which supposedly has six people on record on the job, may have as little as three or none. There is no allowance for replacement officers. We have to deal with that.

In February I raised the question with the minister of public security. It came up because there was a rumour that the northeast drug section would be disbanded, one of the most successful drug enforcement offices in eastern Canada. The reason was the RCMP did not have the resources and the manpower to run this important drug enforcement agency. A moratorium has been put on the closure, but still the drug section is not there the way it was. The RCMP says it is back again, but the officers have been seconded and, again, we do not have the people we need.

The most senior RCMP officers in the province have told me they simply do not have the money to hire the RCMP officers to provide a minimum level of law enforcement in Nova Scotia.

I asked the minister on February 3 to ensure that it had the resources. I brought up the business about filling the vacancies. She said:

However, let me reassure the hon. member that we have provided additional resources not only to the RCMP, but to other of our programming as it relates to a national drug strategy. The RCMP resources have been augmented nationally...

It certainly does not show. The RCMP tell me not only has it not been augmented, but it has been reduced, plus its workload has dramatically increased. With the advent of 911 and all the other cutbacks in government services, the front line for many people on whatever the issue is the RCMP, and it simply cannot handle it. The RCMP needs more resources.

As I did in February, I call upon the government to enhance the resources, to improve and increase them. The RCMP is trying to stretch its meagre resources now to cover our part of Nova Scotia. I read every day in the newspapers that there are other parts of the province suffering the same problems.

I have experienced them myself. In the case of Stewiacke, the RCMP has put a used mobile home in front of the former RCMP station, which is a temporary facility, and I am pleased it has done that. Since it is used, it will be converted. The Minister of Public Works has agreed to upgrade it as quickly as possible to ensure it is available. However, it is just a mobile home. It is not good enough for the long term, but at least we will have a police presence again.

I know this is not all due to the RCMP or to one single thing, but we have to address the RCMP. It needs the tools, the resources, the money and the manpower to do the job. We need a more aggressive approach to law enforcement and the justice system.

Bill C-64 is a good example. The bill came forth originally as Bill C-287, and it was a strong bill. The government watered it down and taken the onus off the criminals again and put it on the RCMP.

In my view it is an amazing development. When I first started in Parliament, I had no justice or policing issues. Now it is one of my biggest problems and it is difficult to solve because the Liberals will not provide the resources to supply a minimum level of law enforcement.

[Law Enforcement, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend and neighbour, the member for Yorkton—Melville, on his birthday today. He has been involved with law enforcement issues for a long time. Law enforcement was not an issue in my riding for years but lately towns like Debert and Stewiacke are experiencing enforcement challenges unheard of years ago.

There are several reasons for this, but one thing is clear. The RCMP in Nova Scotia does not have the resources to provide the minimum level of law enforcement required.

Last February, senior RCMP officers confirmed to me that Nova Scotia just does not have the money to hire enough officers. At that time the minister assured me that the money would be made available. That has not happened.

Now small communities in my riding and all over Nova Scotia are experiencing problems and the RCMP just does not have the officers or the money to handle it.

I again ask the minister to help the RCMP to return to a minimum level of acceptable law enforcement in Nova Scotia by simply providing it with the money.